I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 8 - CA- 0 0 9 8 3 - S CT M AR Y S CA GGS
v. GPCH- GP, I

NC. d / b / a GARDEN PARK

M EDICAL CENTER
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 05/ 22/ 2008 TRI AL J UDG E: HON . J ERR Y O. TE RRY, S R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HARRI S ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT A T T O R N E Y F O R A P P E L L A N T : W O O D R O W W . P R IN G L E , III AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : KAAR A L E NA L I ND W IL L IA M E . W H IT F IE L D , III NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - P ERS ONA L I NJ URY D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 10/ 08/ 2009 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1 . T h is is an ap p ea l o f the d ism issal o f a p erso n al-i n jury ca se that b eg an in 2 0 0 2 . M ary Scaggs w as bei ng tr eat ed atthe appel l ee’ s m edi cal f aci l i ty, w her e s he cl ai m s s he f el l f r om an e xa mi na t i on t a bl e a nd was i nj ur e d a s a r e s ul t . Sc a gg s n a med “ G a r de n Pa r k M edi cal C en ter” a s the d efe n d an t, rath er th an “ G P C H -G P , Inc . d /b/a G ard en P ark M ed ical C en ter” (“ G P C H -G P , I n c .”). T h e p ro c e d u ra l h isto ry o f th is m a tter in c lu d e s a p rio r a p p e a l to th is C o u rt . See Scaggs v. GP C H - GP , I nc. , 9 3 1 S o . 2 d 1 2 7 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ) (“ S cag g s I ”). I n Sept ember2007, the C i r cui tC our tof the Fi r s tJudi ci al D i s tr i ctof H arr i s on C ounty gr ant ed

### 2

G PC H - G P, I nc. ’ s di s m i s s al m ot i on, f i ndi ng thatScaggs ’ s amended compl ai nt , w hi ch amended onl y G PC H - G P, I nc. ’ s name, w as unt i m el y. Fi ndi ng err or , w e r ever s e and r emand forfur ther proceedings.

F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2 . S c a g g s filed h e r o rig in a l c o m p laint on A p ri l 12 , 2 0 0 4 . S u m m o n s w as issu e d to G ar den Park M edi cal C ent er , the d/b/ a of G PC H - G P, I nc. T he r eturn w as f i l ed on A pr i l 21, 2 0 0 4 , re v e a lin g s e rv ic e o n th e c h ie f e x e c u tiv e o ff ic e r o f G a rd e n P a rk M e d ic a l C e n te r. A
m ot i on t o di s m i s s and/ orforsumm ary j udgm entw as fi l ed by G PC H - G P, I nc. , d/b/ a G ar den Par k M edi cal C ent er( err oneous l y i dent i f i ed as G ar den Park M edi cal C ent er ) , on M ay 10, 2004. T he mot i on as s ert ed i nt eral i a thatScaggs had f ai l ed t o: ( 1) i dent i f

y the corr ect d e fe n d a n t an d se rv e p ro c e ss u p o n th e re g iste re d a g e n t fo r se rv ice o f p ro c e ss , an d (2 ) file
w i thi n the appl i cabl e tw o- years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . T hus i s s ue w as j oi ned. Scaggs
r es ponded by ar gui ng thats he s houl d be al l ow ed t o a m end the capt i on of herpl eadi ng s o t hat G PC H - G P, Inc . w oul d be cor r ect l y nam ed. T he tr i al courtgr ant ed G PC H - G P, I nc. ’ s m ot i on, s o l e l y o n t h e s t a tu t e - o f
- l i mi t a t i o n s i s s u e , b u td i d n o ta d d r e s s th e i s s u e o f mi s n o me r . On appea l , thi s C ourtr ever s ed and r emanded, hol di ng thatScaggs w as notbarr ed f r om p ro c e e d in g , a s th e s ta tu te o f l im ita tio n s h a d n o t e x p ir e d . I d. a t 1 2 7 7 . ¶3. A ft er rem an d , G P C H -G P , Inc . , fi led a m oti on t o dism iss an d /or for su m m ary j udgm ent , r eas s ert i ng thatScaggs had n ot i dent i f i ed and s erved pr oces s on the corr ect def endant . Scaggs r es ponded by r el yi ng on herpr evi ous f i l i ngs . A f

t era hea r i ng, the tr i al
courtgr ant ed Scaggs l eave t o amend. Scaggs then f i l ed hera m ended compl ai nti n Sept ember 2 0 0 7 , am e n d in g o n ly th e n a m e o f th e d e fe n d a n t.

### 3

¶4. G PC H - G P, I nc. , then m oved t o di s m i s s the amended compl ai nt , ar gui ng thatScaggs had notf

i l ed heract i on agai ns tG PC H - G P, I nc. , w i thi n the s t atut e- of
- l i m i t at i ons req u ir em en ts of M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 1 5 -1-3 6 . T h e tr ial co u rtgran ted G P C H -G P , Inc . ’s di s m i s s al m ot i on, s t at i ng, “Si nce the r equi r ement s underM i s s . R. Ci v. P. 15( c) have notbeen
m e t, [ S c a g g ’s] a m e n d e d c o m p lain t d o e s n o t re late b a c k to the o rig in a l co m p lain t an d sh o u ld th e re fo re b e d is m is s e d a s tim e b a rr e d .” S c a g g s a p p e a ls th e d is m is s a l. DI S CU S S I ON ¶ 5 . O n e iss u e is b e fo re th e C o u rt. W HETH ER I T W AS E RRO R TO D I S M I S S THE AM ENDED CO M PLAI NT. ¶ 6 . W e a r e c a l l e d u p o n t o ru l e o n a mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s i n v o l v i n g a p u r e q u e s t i o n o f l a w. In su c h in sta n c e s, “ [t] h is C o u rt re v iew s d e n o v o a trial c o u rt’s g ra n t or d e n ial o f a m o tio n to di s m i s s . ” For es t

H il l N urs ing Ctr. & Long T

erm Care M

gm t . , L L C v. B r is ter , 992 So. 2d 1 1 7 9 , 1 1 8 7 (M is s . 2 0 0 8 ). ¶7 . Sca gg s f

i l e d he r a mend e d c ompl a i nt i n Se pt e mber 20 07 . The s t a tut e of l i mi t a t i ons e x p ir e d in M a y 2 0 0 4 . See S cag gs I, 931 So. 2d at1277. T hus , hercompl ai nti s t i m e- barr ed
u n les s it re late s b a c k to th e o ri g in a l c o m p lain t. A n a n a ly sis o f M iss iss ip p i R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 1 5 (c ) is n e c e ss a ry h e re . It state s th e fo llo w in g : R el ati on B ack of A m en d m en ts . W h e n e v e r th e cla im o r d e fe n se as se rte d in the amended pl eadi ng ar os e outof the conduc t , tr ans act i on, oroccurr ence s et f or th oratt empt ed t o be s etf or th i n the or i gi nal pl eadi ng, the amendm ent r el at es back t o the dat e of the or i gi nal pl eadi ng. A n amendm entchangi ng the part y agai ns tw hom a cl ai m i s a s s ert ed r el at es ba ck i f the f or egoi ng pr ovi s i on i s s at i s f i ed and, w i thi n the per i od pr ov i ded by R ul e 4( h) f ors ervi ce of

the su m m o n s a n d c o m p lain t, th e p a rty to b e b ro u g h t in b y a m e n d m e n t:

### 4 ( 1) ha s r ece i ved s uch not i ce of the i ns t i tut i on of

the act i on that th e p a r ty w i l l n o tb e p r e j u d i c e d i n m a i n t a i n i n g th e p a r ty 's def ens e on the mer i t s , and ( 2) knew ors houl d have know n that , butf ora mi s t ake c o n c e rn in g the ide n tity o f th e p ro p e r p a rty , th e ac tio n w o u ld have be e n b r ou gh ta ga i ns tthe pa rty. A n a mend mentpu r s ua nt t o R ule 9( h) i s n ot an am end m ent chang i ng the p arty ag ai nst w h o m a c laim is a ss e rte d a n d s u c h a m e n d m e n t re late s b a c k to the dat e of

the or i gi nal pl eadi ng. M is s . R . C iv . P . 1 5 (c ). ¶ 8 . GPC H- GP, I n c . , c o n c e d e s t h a t( 1 ) t h e a me n d e d pl e a d i n g a r o s e o u to f th e s a me conducts etf

or th i n the or i gi nal pl eadi ng; and ( 2) i thad re cei ved not i ce of t he i ns t i tut i on of the acti on such thati tw ou l d no thave bee n prej ud i ced i n m ai ntai ning a def ense on t he m eri t s. T h u s, th e o n ly lan g u a g e in th e ru le a t issu e is a s fo llo w s: A n a m e n d m e n t c ha ng i ngthe par t y agai ns tw hom a cl ai m i s as s ert ed r el at es back i f . . . w i thi n the per i od pr ovi ded by Rul e 4( h) f ors ervi ce of

the s um m ons and compl ai nt , the par t

y t o be br oughti n b y a m e n d m e n t . . . k n e w o r sh o u ld have know n t hat , butfora m i s t ake conc erni ng t he i dent i ty of the pr operparty, th e a c tio n w o u ld

h a v e b e e n b ro u g h t a g a in s t th e p a rt y . M i s s . R . C i v. P. 15(c ) ( emphasi s added) . H er e, Scaggs w as notatt empt i ng t o s ubs t i tut e the party br oughti n ori gi nal l y or t o br i ng i n a new party. She w as m er el y att empt i ng t o corr ect
a m isn o m e r, so th a t th e d e fe n d a n t w o u ld b e c o rre c tly n a m e d a s “ G P C H -G P , In c ., d /b /a G a rd e n P a rk M e d ic a l C e n te r,” in s te a d o f s im p ly its d /b /a “ G a rd e n P a rk M e d ic a l C e n te r.” T he l ack of

a cl ai m bei ng as s ert ed aga i ns ta new party r ender s the above
- quot ed port i on of R ul e 15( c) i nappl i cabl e. T he appl i cabl e port i on of the rul e i s thus r educe d t o the f ol l ow i ng:

“ W h e n e v e r th e cla im o r d e fe n se a ss e rte d in th e a m e n d e d p lea d in g a ro se o u t o f th e c o n d u c t, tr ans act i on, oroccurr ence s etf or th oratt empt ed t o be se tf or th i n the or i gi nal pl eadi ng, the

### 5

amendm entr el at es back t o t he dat e of t he or i gi nal pl eadi ng. ” G PC H - G P, Inc . , has conce ded thi s s ect i on of

the rul e; t hus , t he am endmentre l at es back, m aki ng i ter r ort o have di s m i s s ed S c a g g s’s c o m p lain t. ¶9. T hi s Courtha s l ong r ecogni zed thatthe doctr i ne of m i s nom eral l ow s part i es t o corr ect p a rt y -n a m e e rr o rs if

d o in g s o w o u ld n o t r e s u lt in p re ju d ic e . See S. T

r ucking Serv. , I

nc. v. Mis s . Sand an d G r avel , I nc. , 4 8 3 S o . 2 d 3 2 1 , 3 2 3 -2 4 (M iss . 1 9 8 6 ); D el ta C otton O il

Co. v. P la n ters' O il Mill , 1 0 7 S o . 7 6 4 , 7 6 6 -6 7 , 1 4 2 M iss . 5 9 1 (1 9 2 6 ); A la. & V i cks burg Ry. Co. v. Bolding , 13 So. 844, 846, 69 M i s s . 255 ( 1891) . I n Sout her n T r ucking , the p lai n ti ff’ s compl ai ntm i s i dent i f

i ed the pl ai nt i f

f’ s corpor at e name, “South M i s s . Sand & G r avel , ” but i nst ead us ed “M i s s . Sand & G r avel . ” S. Tr uc king , 483 So. 2d at323- 24. A l though t hat
com pl ai ntw as di s m i s s ed f orotherr eas ons , the Sout he r n Tr uc kingCourtr e a f f i r med t he d o c trin e o f m isn o m e r. I d. T he C our tci t ed G eor gi a ca s es hol di ng thatan err oneous corpor at e name s houl d be corr ect abl e i f “an ac tual par ty w er e i n cour t , butw as notcal l ed by hi s pr opername. ” I

d. at324 ( ci t i ng M

y r tle Lod

ge N o. 16 63 , I

. O . O . F. v. Q uattle ba um , 63 S .E .2 d 3 6 5 , 3 6 6 (G a . 1 9 5 1 ); D onald v. L uckie Str ike Loan s, I nc. , 251 S. E . 2d 168, 169- 70 ( G a. C t . A pp. 1978) ) . T he C our ts t at ed the “ge ner al rul e, w hi ch i s thatan amendm ent corr ect i ng a mi s nom eri s perm i s s i bl e atany t i m e orany s t age of the pr ocee di ngs . ” S. Tr uc king , 4 8 3 S o . 2 d a t 3 2 4 (c itin g 6 7 A C .J .S . P ar t i es § 237) . T he w i s dom r evea l ed i n t he quot e f r om C orpus J ur i s Secundum i s no l es s compel l i ng t oday than w hen i tw as f i r s tw r i t t en: A m i s nom erorm i s des cr i pt i on i n the name of a part y m ay be corr ect ed by amendm ent , pr ovi ded i tdoes notef f ectan ent i r e change of pa r t i es orcaus e a f r audul entorunj us tr es ul t . A s a gene r al rul e, f r equent l y unders t atut es orrul es of courts o perm i t t i ng, an err ori n the name ordes cr i pt i on of a party, w hether a mi s nom erorm i s des cr i pt i on i n the nam e o f a pl ai nt i f f ora mi s nom eror

### 6

m i s des cr i pt i on i n the name of a def endant , m ay be corr ect ed by an amendm ent of the appr opr i at e pl eadi ng. Such an amendm ent , how ever , s houl d notbe al l ow ed w her e i tef

f ect s an addi t i on or s ubs t i tut i on of pa r t i es , orent i r e cha nge of part i es , or causes a f r audul entorunj us tr es ul t . I f the ef f ectof an amendm entof

a pl eadi ng i s m er el y t o corr ectthe name of a per s on, and the pr operparty i s actual l y i n cour t , as w her e pr oces s has ac tual l y been s erved on the true def

endant , orhe has appea r ed and de f end ed or otherw i s e s ubm i t t ed hi m s el f t o the j ur i s di ct i on of

the court , ther e i s no pr ej udi ce. H ow ever , i f the o ther p arty su ffers pre

jud ice o r surp ri se, th e p eti ti o n to ch an g e the n am e o f a part y w i l l notbe perm i t t ed. A ddi t i onal l y, w hen the pr operp arty w as not se rv e d a n d th e re fo re is n o t b e fo re th e c o u rt, a p lain tiff w h o se e k s to c o rre c t a n a me o rd e s c r i p t i o n o f th e p a r ty i n th e c o mp l a i n tth a ti s d e f i c i e n ti n s o me r es pectm us tdem ons tr at e com pl i ance w i th the rul e governi ng r el at i on back of am end ed p l eadings. 6 7 A C .J .S . P ar t i es § 2 3 7 , p p . 7 6 0 -61 (20 0 2 ). ¶10. T hi s C our t has al l ow ed j udgm ent s t o s t and, notw i ths t andi ng a m i s nom er , “w her e the i dent i ty of

t he per s ons sued and aga i ns tw hom j udgm enti s r ender ed i s notdoubt f ul . ” D e lta Co tto n O il , 107 So. at767. I n Bolding , the C our tal l ow ed exe cut i on of a j udgm enti n w hi ch the pl ai nt i f

f s ued “A . & V . R ai l r oad C om pany, ” even though t he corr ectname “A l abama & V ic k s b u rg R a ilw a y C o m p a n y ” w a s n o t p le a d e d . Bolding , 13 So. at846. ¶11. O urCourtof

A ppeal s f

ol l ow ed the s ame l ogi c i n Mieg e r v . P e a rl R ive r C o u n ty , 986 S o . 2 d 1 0 2 5 (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 8 ). T h e p lain ti ff sue d the “ P ea rl R iver C o u n ty S h eriff’s D epart m ent , ” i ns t ead of “ Pearl R i ver C ounty. ” I d. at1026. Shor t l y af

t erf i l i ng s ui t , t he plai nti ff senta no t i ce of cl ai m t o the presi den tand cl erk of the cou nty board o f s up ervi sors . I d. at1025- 26. A ft er t he S heri f f’ s D epart m entm oved f ordi s m i s s al f

orf ai l ur e t o name a pol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i on as a party, t he pl ai nt i f f m oved f orl eave t o am end hercom pl ai nt , ar gui ng thatt he pr opercount y off i ci al s had been puton not i ce a nd knew thata s ui tw oul d be f i l ed. I d. a t 1 0 2 6 . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls h e ld th a t th e re c e ip t o f th e n o tice o f c laim b y th e c o u n ty

### 7

o ff ic e rs s a tis fi e d th e r e q u ir e m e n ts o f R u le 1 5 (c ). I d. a t1028. H er e, a s i n Mieger , the pr oper def endantw as puton not i ce a nd knew notonl y t hata sui tw oul d be f i l ed; i tal r eady ha d been fi le d . ¶12. O ur rul i ng t oday i s cons i s t ent al s o w i th f eder al court rul i ngs thr oughout the countr y. T he Fi f th C i r cui tC our tof

A ppeal s has hel d thatamended co m plai nt s s houl d r el at e bac k
w h e n a m is n o m e r o c c u rs . See Hens gens v. D eer e & Co. , 86 9 F . 2 d 87 9 , 88 4 (5th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ); Mon talvo v. T

ow erL i f e B ldg. , 426 F. 2d 1135 ( 5th C i r . 1970) . I n H e ns ge ns , the p lai n ti ff
s ued “J ohn D eer e C orp. ” as oppos ed t o i t s pr opername, “D eer e & C o. ” He ns ge ns , 869 F. 2d
a t 8 8 0 . He ns

ge ns w a s a d iv e rs ity c a s e in w h ic h th e c o u rt a p p lie d L o u is ia n a la w . I d. J udge W i s dom s t at ed, “ L aw i s nota ga m e of s cr abbl e, ” and des cr i bed J ohn D eer e’ s ar gum ent s as “c ap ti o u s p u zz lem en ts [ that] h av e a b ea ri n g o n this ca se in the lim it ed sen se th at th ey ca rry t o a b s u r d i ty th e d e f

e n d a n t 's a r g u m e n t , b a s i c a l l y , t h a tth e p l a i n t i f f m u s ts u f f e rf o rh e rl a w y e r 's
m i s t ake, one thatthe part i es knew w as an i ns i gni f i canterr ori n nom encl atur e. ” I d. at884. I n Montalvo , the pl ai nt i f f s named t he “Tow erL i f e B ui l di ng” as the def

endant , i ns t ead of “Tow erL i f

e I ns . C orp. ” Montalvo , 426 F. 2d at1137-38. T hatcour tal l ow ed an amended pl eadi ng t o r el at e bac k beca us e in tera lia “the C om pany knew ors houl d ha ve know n thatt he pl ai nt i f f s had eve r y i nt ent i on of br i ngi ng s ui tagai ns tthei rempl oyer– w hat evert he
e m p lo y e r's p ro p e r l e g a l n a m e m ig h t b e . . . .” I d . at1147. ¶ 1 3 . O th e r f

e d e ra l c ir c u it c o u rt s a re in a c c o rd . See R o b e rts v . Mic h a e ls , 219 F. 3d 775, 778- 79 ( 8th Ci r . 2000) ( pl ai nt i f f a l l ow ed t o a m end f

r om “M i ds outh Food V endi ng Ser vi ce, In c .” to “ R o n M ich a e ls d /b /a M id -S o u th V e n d in g ” ); Morrel v. N ation w ide Mu t

. Fire Ins. Co. , 188 F. 3d 218, 224 ( 4th Ci r . 1999) ( abs ence of “ I nc. ” deemed i ns i gnif i cant a nd

### 8

ir re le v a n t); A thm erv. C . E . I . E qui pm ent Co. I nc. , 1 21 F. 3d 2 94 , 2 96 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 7) ( “A
m i s nom eri s nothi ng m or e than an err ori n the dr af t i ng of the compl ai nt , a nd i toughtt o be
c o rrig ib le b y am e n d m e n t . . . . ” ); W or thington v. W

il s on , 8 F. 3d 1253, 1256 ( 7th C i r . 1993) (“a m en d m en t w ith relati o n b a c k is ge n era ll y p erm itted in o rde r t o co rrect a m isno m er o f a d efe n d an t w h ere the p rop er d efe n d an t i s alread y b efo re the co u rt. . . ”). ¶14. T o supportthei rar gum ent s , appel l ees have c i t ed Ral ph W al ker , I ncor por ated v. G al lagher , 926 So. 2d 890 ( M i s s . 2006) , and W iln e r v . W

h ite , 9 2 9 S o . 2 d 3 1 5 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ), and cases ci t ed ther ei n. H ow ever, a readi ng of each reveals cl ear and im po rt ant di st i ncti on s. I n R al ph W al ker , the pl ai nt i f

f s oughtto add a new def endantaf

t erthe expi r at i on of

t he
s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . See R al ph W al ker , 926 So. 2d at892. I n W il ner , the pl ai nt i f

f s ought to a d d fo u r a d d itio n a l d e fe n d a n ts a ft e r e x p ir a tio n o f th e sta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . See W il nerv. W h ite , 929 So. 2d at317- 18. T hus , i n ci t i ng W il ner , G PC H - G P, I nc. “f

ai l [ s ] t o cons i dert he
w el l
- r ecogni zed di s t i nct i on betw een a compl ai ntthats ues the w r ong party, and a c om pl ai nt thats ues t he r i ghtparty by the w r ong name. ” R o b e rts v. Mich a e ls , 219 F. 3d 775, 777- 78 (8th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). ¶1 5. The W

ilnerC o u r t c it e d tw o c a s e s th a t a re lik e w is e d is tin g u is h a b le . See N el s on v. A dam s U

SA , I nc. , 5 2 9 U .S . 4 6 0 , 1 2 0 S . C t 1 5 7 9 , 1 4 6 L . E d . 2 d 5 3 0 (2 0 0 0 ); C urr y v. Turner , 832 So. 2d 508 ( M i s s . 2002) . I n C u rry , the pl ai nt i f f i n a w r ongf

ul
- death a ct i on f

i r s ts ued the p e rs o n w h o h a d k ille d th e d e c e d e n t. C u rry , 832 So. 2d at509. A f t erthe or i gi nal s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons e xpi r ed, the pl ai nt i f f att empt ed t o add a dd i t i o n a ln e w d efe n d an ts: (1) the k il ler’s
r el at i ves , undera negl i gent - entrus t m enttheory; and ( 2) the ow nerof the bui l di ng w her e the i nci denthad occ urr ed, undera pr emi s es - l i abi l i ty theory. I d. Thi s Cour tdi s mi s s e d the

### 9

compl ai nt s agai ns tthe new l y- nam ed def endant s , as they had notbeen gi ven not i ce of the
o ri g in a l c o m p la in t. I

d. a t513- 14. I n N

el s on , the pl ai nt i f

f or i gi nal l y s ued a c orpor at i on and la te r a tte m p te d to a d d th e s o le s h a re h o ld e r o f t h e c o rp o ra tio n . N el s on , 529 U . S. at462- 63. T he U . S. Supr eme C our tdi s m i s s ed the compl ai ntagai ns tthe new l y- nam ed party beca us e he had been deni ed “al l opportuni ty t o be hear d i n r es pons e t o the amendm ent . ” I d. at467 n. 1. T he C our tnot ed al s o t hatF eder al R ul e of C i vi l P r ocedur e 15 “appl i es onl y i n cas es i nvol vi ng ‘a m i s t ake r egar di ng the i dent i ty of a pr operparty. ’ ” I

d. ( qu ot i ng Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 15( c) ( 3) ( B ) ) . T he N

el s on pl ai nt i f

f had made no s uch mi s t ake, beca us e he ha d know n of the
s ol e s har ehol der ’ s r ol e al l al ong, buthad chos en nott o i ncl ude hi m as a def endantunt i l af

t er th e s ta tu te o f l im ita tio n s h a d ru n . N el s on , 529 U . S. at467 n. 1. ¶16. G PC H - G P, I nc. ’ s ar gum ent that Scaggs f ai l ed t o m ake a di l i gent ef f or t t o amend t he compl ai nti s m i s pl ace d, as “r eas onabl e di l i gence ” i s i nappl i cabl e. W e have s t at ed that “[ r ] easonab l e d i l i gence i s a s t andar d onl y f ordet erm i ni ng the ef

f or t s m ade t o di s covert he true i dent i ty of

a na m ed f

i ct i t i ous pa r ty unde rRul e 9( h) . ” W il ner , 9 2 9 S o . 2 d a t 3 2 3 . R u le 9(h) d oes n ot appl y. Scaggs i s s eeki ng t o corr ecta mi s nom er , nott o s ue a pr evi ous l yu n k n o w n “ J o h n D o e ” d e fe n d a n t. ¶17. A l l ow i ng the di s m i s s al t o s t and w oul d deny Scaggs an oppor tuni ty f ora tr i al on the
m er i t s beca us e of

a mi s nom eri n the compl ai nt . Scaggs s houl d notbe penal i zed f orthe
m i s nom er , beca us e no s uch pena l ty exi s t s underthe f act s of thi s cas e, i n w hi ch the corr ect i on i s si m pl e and pr ej udi ces no one. A ccor di ngl y, w e r ever s e the j udgm entof the tr i al courtand
rem and forfur ther proceedings. ¶18. RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D.

### 1 0

W A LL ER , C . J. , G R A V ES, P. J. , D I C K I N SO N , LA M A R , K I TC H EN S, CH AND LER AND PI ERCE, J J . , C ON CUR . CAR LS ON , P. J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON. CA RL S ON , P RE S I DI NG J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶ 1 9 . B e c a u se th e m a

jo rity f in d s th a t “ S c a g g s w a s n o t atte m p tin g to su b stitu te th e p a rty br oughti n or i gi nal l y ort o br i ng i n a new party” and thatonl y pa rt of the r el at i on -ba ck d o c trin e is a p p lica b le, I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. ¶20 . A s st at ed b y the m aj ori ty, M i ssi ssi pp i R ule of C i vil P rocedu re 15(c) st at es: R elation B a ck o f A m en d m en ts . W h e n e v e r th e c laim o r d e fe n se a ss e rte d in the amended pl eadi ng ar os e outof t he conduct , tr ans act i on, oroccurr ence s et f or th oratt empt ed t o be s etf or th i n the or i gi nal pl eadi ng, the amendm ent r el at es back t o the dat e of the or i gi nal pl eadi ng. A n amendm entchangi ng the part y agai ns tw hom a cl ai m i s ass ert ed r el at es back i f the f or egoi ng pr ovi s i on i s s at i sf i ed and, w i thi n the per i od pr ovi ded by R ul e 4( h) f ors ervi ce of

the su m m o n s a n d c o m p lain t, th e p a rty to b e b ro u g h t in b y a m e n d m e n t: (1 ) h a s re c e iv e d s u c h n o tice o f th e in stitu tio n o f th e a c tio n th a t th e p a rty w ill notbe pr ej udi ced i n m ai nt ai ni ng the party' s def ens e on the mer i t s , and (2 ) k n e w o r sh o u ld h a v e k n o w n th a t, bu t fo r a m ista k e c o n c e rn in g th e id e n tity o f th e p r o p e rp a r ty , th e a c t i o n wo u l d h a v e b e e n b r o u g h ta g a i n s tth e p a r ty . An a m e n d m e n t p u rsu a n t to R u le 9 (h ) is n o t an a m e n d m e n t ch a n g in g th e p a rty a g a in st w h o m a c laim is as se rte d an d su c h am e n d m e n t rela tes b a c k to th e d a te of the or i gi nal pl eadi ng. M i s s . R. Ci v . P . 1 5 ( c ) . I n t h e c a s e b e f o r e u s , GP CH
- GP , I n c . , d o e s n o td i s p u t e th e f i r s ttwo pr ongs of

the r el at i on- back t es tand conc edes thatthe cl ai m s “ass ert ed i n the amended pl eadi ng ar os e outof

the conduct , tr ans act i on, oroc curr ence s etf or th oratt empt ed t o be s et f or th i n the or i gi nal pl eadi ng. ” G PC H - G P, I nc. , al s o doe s notdi s put e thati tr ece i ved s uch not i ce of the i ns t i tut i on of

the ac t i on thati tw i l l notbe pr ej udi ced i n m ai nt ai ni ng a def ens e. See M i s s . R . C i v. P . 15(c ) ( 1) . H ow ever , G PC H - G P, Inc . , cor r ect l y di s put es t he t hi r d pr ong,

### 1 1

w hetheri t“knew ors houl d have know n that , butf ora m i s t ake conce rni ng the i dent i ty of t he pr op e rpa r t y, t he a c t i on w ou l d h a ve be e n b r ou gh ta ga i ns tthe pa r ty. ” M i s s . R. Ci v. P. 1 5 (c )(2 ). T h e m a

jo rity a rriv e s a t th e c o n c lu s io n th a t S c a g g s w a s “ m e re ly a ttem p tin g to c o rr e c t a m is n o m e r, s o th a t th e d e fe n d a n t w o u ld b e c o rr e c tly n a m e d a s ‘G P C H -G P , In c ., d /b /a G a rd e n P a rk M e d ica l C e n ter ,’” s o th e th ird p ro n g o f th e re latio n -b a c k d o c trin e is i nappl i cabl e. I m us tdi s agr ee w i th thi s concl us i on. ¶2 1. H er e, accor di ng t o t he r ecor d, S caggs fa i l e d t o s e r ve pr oc e s s up on the c orr e ct
r egi s t er ed age ntf

orG PC H - G P, I nc. I ns t ead, Scaggs caus ed pr oces s t o be i s s ued f ors ervi ce u p o n “ G a rd e n P a rk M e d ica l C e n ter ,” a n d th e p ro c e ss se rv e r’s re tu rn o n th e su m m o n s re v e a ls thatthe s um m ons w as s erved upon “ G ar den Par k H os pi t al ” by pe r s onal l y s ervi ng W i l l i am Peaks . T her ef

or e, M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 15( c) i s appl i cabl e i n i t s ent i r ety. ¶22 . T he d i sputed po rt i on o f the rel at i on -back d octr i ne “essenti al l y asks w hether , becau se of the exis t ence of

a m i s t ake as t o the part i es ' i dent i t i es on the partof the movantor compl ai nan t , the new l y- named def endantdi d notknow thatan ac t i on w oul d be br ought agai ns thi m w i thi n the 120 days . ” R al ph W al ker , I nc. v. G al

lagher , 926 So. 2d 890, 896 ( M i s s . 20 06 ) ( e mpha s i s a dd e d) ( c i t a t i on omi t t e d) . G a r de n Pa r k a s s e r t s tha tSc a gg s c a nn ot
a r gu e tha ta mi s t a ke w a s made r e ga r di ng the pr op e ri de nt i ty o f G a r de n Pa r k a s G PCH
- G P, I nc. , s i nce Sca ggs ’ s att orney i ns t i tut ed cl ai m s agai ns tG PC H - G P, I nc. , pr i ort o f i l i ng t he
or i gi nal compl ai nti n thi s act i on, usi ng G PC H - G P, Inc . ’ s prope rname. Fur ther , I n W il ner v. W h ite , r egar di ng M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 15( c) ( 2) , thi s C our ts t at ed: T h is pa rto f th e ru le esse n ti all y ask s w h ethe r, b ec au se o f th e e x ist en ce o f a m ista k e a s to th e p a rties ' id e n tit ies o n th e p a rt o f th e m o v a n t o r c o m p lain a n t, the new l y- named def

endantdi d notknow thatan act i on w oul d be br ought

### Curr y v . Tur ner , 832 So. 2d 508 (Mi ss . 2002) . 1 

### 1 2 a g a in s t h im w ith in th e p r e s c r ib e d tim e . C u rry , 8 3 2 S o . 2 d a t 5 1 3 .[ ] The 1 pur pose of this r ul e is t o al l ow s om e l eeway t o a par t y w ho m ade a m is take , s o l ong a s the party doe s w hati s r equi r ed w i thi n the t i m e per i od underthe rul e. T h e U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt, in lo o k in g a t th e fe d e ra l co u n terp a rt to th is ru le, F ed . R . C iv. P . 15 (c)(3)(B ), no ted tha t this "su b sec ti o n ap p li es o n ly in cas es i nvol vi ng ' a m is take con cerni ng the ident i ty of the p roper party. ' " N el s on v. A dam s U

SA , I nc. , 529 U . S. 460, 467, 120 S. C t . 1579, 146 L . E d. 2d 530, n. 1 (200 0) ( quot i ng Fed. R . C i v. P. 15( c) ( 3) ( B ) ) . H er e, ther e ca n be no att empt t o as s ertthata m i s t ake w as m ade conc erni ng W hi t e' s i dent i ty. A l s o, W i l nerunque s t i onabl y f ai l ed t o make a r eas onabl y di l i gente f f or tt o add W hi t e' s name t o the com plai nt s ooner . W hi t e' s name actual l y appea r s i n the b o d y o f th e o ri g inal co m p lai n t i tsel f. W iln e r v . W

h ite , 9 2 9 S o . 2 d 3 1 5 , 3 2 3 -24 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ) (f o o tno te om itted). See al s o G al lagher , 9 2 6 S o . 2 d a t 8 9 6 (“T h e p u rp o se o f th is ru le is to a llo w so m e lee w a y to a party w ho m ade a m i s t ake. . . . ”) . Si nce t here w as evi dence bef or e the tr i al cour tt hat Scaggs ’ s att orney pr evi ous l y had f i l ed s ui tagai ns tG PC H - G P, I nc. , corr ect l y i dent i f yi ng G PC H - G P, I nc. , the tr i al courtdi d notcomm i terr ori n determ i ni ng thatScaggs knew t hat “G ar den Park M edi cal C ent er ” w as notthe pr operi dent i ty of the def endant , and ther ef

or e, fail ed to m e e t th e relati o n -ba ck testo f M issi ssipp i R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 1 5 (c). Fur t her m or e , a s a l s o d e t e r mi ne d b y the tr i a l c ou r t , Sc a gg s di d n ott a ke a ny a f f i r mat i ve m eas ures to am end the compl ai ntotherthan a s i m pl e r eques tw i thi n herR es pons e t o the M ot i on t o D i s m i s s thats he be a l l ow ed t o amend hercompl ai nti f the tr i al courtdet erm i ned thatthe w r ong party def endantw as named. ¶ 2 3 . F o r th e se re a so n s, I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t.